No. I am in favor of a complete re-assignment of the term "need"....and I am opposed the government having the power to TAKE from one to give to another, again with no regard to the fallacy of infinite growth. A socialist system is still essentially taking living stuff and turning it into dead stuff and calling that "growth". The fact that a system like this attempts to distribute it more evenly is still lipstick on a pig. That said, this is still 100% theoretical.

Socialism, communism, capitalism, all of these terms are dead to me as they are, as I have said before, invented ideological constructs meant to further empower the entrenched. They disagree over the means that the "pie" is distributed, but ALL believe that the pie MUST grow, forever. I think this is lunacy, and that future generations will look at us the way we look at ancient Rome; in short, "What the hell were they thinking?"

And I do not imply for this to mean America. It is malignant, and it is global. The entire definition of material worth will be our collective downfall. This is not opinion. It is math.

No one questions whether it is a smart decision to have burned about 90% of the planet's easily recoverable light sweet crude in about a 50 year span. No one questions whether eroding topsoil worldwide at 5x the speed it is replaced is a good idea. The same goes, across the board. It is never about the next generation or the 7th generation down the line. We are gluttons. One day it will catchup to us. We just might be lucky, or selfish enough, to be long dead by then.

If there is a wikipedia for that worldview, I really want to read about me

The pie analogy is really too simplistic.

I agree that our energy and food production must change in order to maintain what we have today. Plus, we should be more conscious about ecosystem disruption (via pollution and displacement), climate disruption, and maybe excessive population growth. Is there anything else you wanted to throw in there? I just want to make sure we're looking at all the issues.

I don't think the decision to avoid gas alternatives was quite as dumb as you think. There was simply no demand to change before. Even if there was, we weren't simply going to put our modern economies on hold as we researched energy alternatives. Now, there is a growing demand to change. This would be an ideal place to move government spending from a few less crucial pockets. You're setting a high standard for early 1900s America to have even considered this current future. I wouldn't call it totally unreasonable, but it is a bit optimistic.

As for food production, I just don't know enough right now. There is much research into alternative agriculture like aquaponics and hybrid plants/animals. We all agree here that hybrids were a bad road to go down, but there's still much time left to change our direction. There's still not an extreme demand in this sector because we have such a nice food surplus. Aside from investing in advanced technologies, we can also chip in with more good old-fashioned work. *As I understand it*, the most sustainable farming techniques require more manual labor and waiting time between crops (thus, less total production). If we farmed more land (due to a higher proportion of the work force contributing) but did it less-intensively, we might be able to save the top soil.

Ecosystem protection just needs to be better regulated. That's all.

I think climate disruption goes away once energy is created without petroleum. Problem solved.

Population growth does increase when food surplus and modern medical practices are present, but it also decreases when cities are present. In the long run, I foresee no population problems.

All of these problems are very solvable. I don't think they are permanent inherent flaws in the system.

Of course, but remember dunbar's number, over 150 people there's no empathy, free market is great for individuals who care only about themselves.

Dunbar's number is the number of stable social relationships a person can comfortably maintain. It has nothing to do with how many people you can feel empathy for. Most people have empathy for strangers. The people who don't, probably don't have empathy for anybody else either.

The free market is great for anyone who enjoys directing their own life, rather than having their destiny steered by somebody else.

If you can't trust one person or a small group of people to engage in financial transactions responsibly, then how can you trust one person or a small group of people to oversee and regulate every financial transaction made?

Dunbar's number is the number of stable social relationships a person can comfortably maintain. It has nothing to do with how many people you can feel empathy for. Most people have empathy for strangers. The people who don't, probably don't have empathy for anybody else either.

The free market is great for anyone who enjoys directing their own life, rather than having their destiny steered by somebody else.

If you can't trust one person or a small group of people to engage in financial transactions responsibly, then how can you trust one person or a small group of people to oversee and regulate every financial transaction made?

The free market is great for getting abused by the rich and powerful... It's also great for entrepreneurs. There's a balance, which is what we have.

We don't trust just one person or a small group of people. There are far, far more checks and balances than you give the system credit for. This is also a main reason that hypothetical conspiraces are ridiculous where "powers that be" (like Rothschilds, bankers, Illuminati, whatever) pull all the strings of the world.

Dunbar's number is the number of stable social relationships a person can comfortably maintain. It has nothing to do with how many people you can feel empathy for. Most people have empathy for strangers. The people who don't, probably don't have empathy for anybody else either.

The free market is great for anyone who enjoys directing their own life, rather than having their destiny steered by somebody else.

If you can't trust one person or a small group of people to engage in financial transactions responsibly, then how can you trust one person or a small group of people to oversee and regulate every financial transaction made?

I have to trust less people in a capitalistic system with a small government, I have to trust a lot in a communistic/socialistic government with a huge government.

I have to trust less people in a capitalistic system with a small government, I have to trust a lot in a communistic/socialistic government with a huge government.

Imagined capitalistic, "free market" systems ignore the fact that regulations have always existed and always will.
Imagined communistic/socialistic governments ignore the fact that the more successful have always taken rewards/commodities from the less successful, and they always will.

Ahaha.....I actually enjoy the fact that you found the pie analogy simplistic....it is VERY simplistic, but it is something people are familiar with, so I am accustomed to using it to explain things

I think that the ultimate lie that the "green" crowd as well as the "big-timer bankers" tell is that alternative energies will be capable of even close to the amount of cheap energy that we currently get from fossil fuels. In the more well-known ways, such as solar and wind, they do not become "energy positive" for 5-7 years. Even with this, the amps you get from it are very low as compared to something like propane or coal.....I know this well, as I live off solar and water power alone.

There is always the retort that we will magically invent ways to increase the amps we get from these technologies, but this is also an area of diminishing returns. These are NOT new techniques, and for as much as they have gotten cheaper, easier to make, they have only marginally increased output....the same goes for wind, long-life batteries, etc.

To add to this, all of these technologies, such as solar and battery technology, require a large amount of rare earth metals which we do not have an indefinite supply of. There is no rare earths mining in the entire US, and China has been mobilizing to take control of these resources for 3 decades. Things like lithium, or the hundreds of rare earths needed to make the alloys we use for so much of our technology, are not indefinite or even close.

There has been, and will not be, any effort to institute a "cradle to cradle" system to conserve any of these and stop the dead-end they are made with now. The same is true for oil, where they is not, and will not be, any worldwide effort to stop the demand curve for petrol that is easy to google and will blow your mind.

Almost everything the modern "western" model does is 100% reliant on this cheap energy. Food is grown and moved by it. All industrial practices now rely on it....and it will be getting a LOT more expensive. I am not an alarmist that is saying we will "run out"....one can technically make gasoline from shale oil or from a field of sugar cane....but these are many orders of magnitude more expensive, both in land and money, than the light/sweet crude we have grown the country on.

For an example of what will be coming, look into the Cantarell oil field in Mexico. In short, it has collapsed...and it is added to about 70% of the major oil fields, or "elephants", that are in KNOWN decline. In some others, such as Gawaar in Saudi, it is a tightly held state secret of the amounts of oil they have left. Many experts feel that Gawaar is also in decline.

Everything reliant on this system will become, slowly, more and more expensive....and nothing will be coming along any time soon to change this. It will lead to further stratification of society, as only the select few will be able to afford the lifestyle that this all affords. This is all 10-20 years away, but it is happening.

The only solution is the loss of the "Wetiko" mind-set. Otherwise it will all be like that Beatles video of the monster that consumes everything, before consuming itself. It is not if, but how long it will take.

Great resources on this include: "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann, and "The Race for What's Left" by Klare.

Ahaha.....I actually enjoy the fact that you found the pie analogy simplistic....it is VERY simplistic, but it is something people are familiar with, so I am accustomed to using it to explain things

I think that the ultimate lie that the "green" crowd as well as the "big-timer bankers" tell is that alternative energies will be capable of even close to the amount of cheap energy that we currently get from fossil fuels. In the more well-known ways, such as solar and wind, they do not become "energy positive" for 5-7 years. Even with this, the amps you get from it are very low as compared to something like propane or coal.....I know this well, as I live off solar and water power alone.

There is always the retort that we will magically invent ways to increase the amps we get from these technologies, but this is also an area of diminishing returns. These are NOT new techniques, and for as much as they have gotten cheaper, easier to make, they have only marginally increased output....the same goes for wind, long-life batteries, etc.

To add to this, all of these technologies, such as solar and battery technology, require a large amount of rare earth metals which we do not have an indefinite supply of. There is no rare earths mining in the entire US, and China has been mobilizing to take control of these resources for 3 decades. Things like lithium, or the hundreds of rare earths needed to make the alloys we use for so much of our technology, are not indefinite or even close.

There has been, and will not be, any effort to institute a "cradle to cradle" system to conserve any of these and stop the dead-end they are made with now. The same is true for oil, where they is not, and will not be, any worldwide effort to stop the demand curve for petrol that is easy to google and will blow your mind.

Almost everything the modern "western" model does is 100% reliant on this cheap energy. Food is grown and moved by it. All industrial practices now rely on it....and it will be getting a LOT more expensive. I am not an alarmist that is saying we will "run out"....one can technically make gasoline from shale oil or from a field of sugar cane....but these are many orders of magnitude more expensive, both in land and money, than the light/sweet crude we have grown the country on.

For an example of what will be coming, look into the Cantarell oil field in Mexico. In short, it has collapsed...and it is added to about 70% of the major oil fields, or "elephants", that are in KNOWN decline. In some others, such as Gawaar in Saudi, it is a tightly held state secret of the amounts of oil they have left. Many experts feel that Gawaar is also in decline.

Everything reliant on this system will become, slowly, more and more expensive....and nothing will be coming along any time soon to change this. It will lead to further stratification of society, as only the select few will be able to afford the lifestyle that this all affords. This is all 10-20 years away, but it is happening.

The only solution is the loss of the "Wetiko" mind-set. Otherwise it will all be like that Beatles video of the monster that consumes everything, before consuming itself. It is not if, but how long it will take.

Great resources on this include: "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann, and "The Race for What's Left" by Klare.

As far as the amount of oil left, don't worry too much about it. The technology is always getting better, and previously unrecoverable hydrocarbons are always becoming available. Sure, you can't just drill into any spot and expect to produce oil anymore, but stuff like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is becoming cheaper and more effective. The physical amount of oil and gas in the ground is finite, but Earth is a huge place, and we've barely scratched the surface.

In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

Ahaha.....I actually enjoy the fact that you found the pie analogy simplistic....it is VERY simplistic, but it is something people are familiar with, so I am accustomed to using it to explain things

I think that the ultimate lie that the "green" crowd as well as the "big-timer bankers" tell is that alternative energies will be capable of even close to the amount of cheap energy that we currently get from fossil fuels. In the more well-known ways, such as solar and wind, they do not become "energy positive" for 5-7 years. Even with this, the amps you get from it are very low as compared to something like propane or coal.....I know this well, as I live off solar and water power alone.

There is always the retort that we will magically invent ways to increase the amps we get from these technologies, but this is also an area of diminishing returns. These are NOT new techniques, and for as much as they have gotten cheaper, easier to make, they have only marginally increased output....the same goes for wind, long-life batteries, etc.

To add to this, all of these technologies, such as solar and battery technology, require a large amount of rare earth metals which we do not have an indefinite supply of. There is no rare earths mining in the entire US, and China has been mobilizing to take control of these resources for 3 decades. Things like lithium, or the hundreds of rare earths needed to make the alloys we use for so much of our technology, are not indefinite or even close.

There has been, and will not be, any effort to institute a "cradle to cradle" system to conserve any of these and stop the dead-end they are made with now. The same is true for oil, where they is not, and will not be, any worldwide effort to stop the demand curve for petrol that is easy to google and will blow your mind.

Almost everything the modern "western" model does is 100% reliant on this cheap energy. Food is grown and moved by it. All industrial practices now rely on it....and it will be getting a LOT more expensive. I am not an alarmist that is saying we will "run out"....one can technically make gasoline from shale oil or from a field of sugar cane....but these are many orders of magnitude more expensive, both in land and money, than the light/sweet crude we have grown the country on.

For an example of what will be coming, look into the Cantarell oil field in Mexico. In short, it has collapsed...and it is added to about 70% of the major oil fields, or "elephants", that are in KNOWN decline. In some others, such as Gawaar in Saudi, it is a tightly held state secret of the amounts of oil they have left. Many experts feel that Gawaar is also in decline.

Everything reliant on this system will become, slowly, more and more expensive....and nothing will be coming along any time soon to change this. It will lead to further stratification of society, as only the select few will be able to afford the lifestyle that this all affords. This is all 10-20 years away, but it is happening.

The only solution is the loss of the "Wetiko" mind-set. Otherwise it will all be like that Beatles video of the monster that consumes everything, before consuming itself. It is not if, but how long it will take.

Great resources on this include: "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann, and "The Race for What's Left" by Klare.

I agree that the current alternatives technologies can't be remolded to match our current energy output. Even nuclear wouldn't cover more than a fraction of the world's energy use, even if we started building new nuke plants left and right. We need a totally new technology.

The free market is great for getting abused by the rich and powerful... It's also great for entrepreneurs. There's a balance, which is what we have.

We don't trust just one person or a small group of people. There are far, far more checks and balances than you give the system credit for. This is also a main reason that hypothetical conspiraces are ridiculous where "powers that be" (like Rothschilds, bankers, Illuminati, whatever) pull all the strings of the world.

We haven't had a free market in well over 150 years. As for getting abused, it takes political power to build an elite, wealthy class. This is accomplished by the Gov't colluding with some selected companies, which enables those companies to become big corporations and perhaps ultimately to control Gov't. If there were no big Gov't there could be no big, huge corporations due to free competition. This is exemplified by the 'revolving doors', not 'conspiracy theory'.

Originally Posted by wiltondeportes

Imagined capitalistic, "free market" systems ignore the fact that regulations have always existed and always will.
Imagined communistic/socialistic governments ignore the fact that the more successful have always taken rewards/commodities from the less successful, and they always will.

We haven't had a free market in well over 150 years. And when we did there were no regulations from Gov't, there were courts to enforce the U.S. Constitution. Until the 18th amendment.

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus

Everything reliant on this system will become, slowly, more and more expensive....and nothing will be coming along any time soon to change this. It will lead to further stratification of society, as only the select few will be able to afford the lifestyle that this all affords. This is all 10-20 years away, but it is happening.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus

The only solution is the loss of the "Wetiko" mind-set. Otherwise it will all be like that Beatles video of the monster that consumes everything, before consuming itself. It is not if, but how long it will take.

Sorry I don't know what Wetiko means. I did google it, but it returned a lot of different answers.

My take-away from this interesting discussion is that I'm really amazed by the number of people here who believe and accept the fact that our money is worthless and that it's only use is for trade, to buy stuff, and that they are happy with that situation. In this situation the worthless paper is not even currency, it's just circulating fiduciary media. These people are not unhappy to trade their hours of work for worthless paper.

Until 1971 most people understood money to be a 'store of wealth' in itself, which is it's primary function. Certainly I was foolish to continue hoping that that was still true, or would ever be true again. Those hopes were dashed in 2009.

Last edited by Cryptocode; 09-22-2013 at 12:14 PM.

"When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

I never said we had a totally free market. Even 150 years, we didn't have a 100% free market.

Originally Posted by Cryptocode

As for getting abused, it takes political power to build an elite, wealthy class. This is accomplished by the Gov't colluding with some selected companies, which enables those companies to become big corporations and perhaps ultimately to control Gov't.

You're looking at the market side of the equation, but you're ignoring the capital side. Capital exponentially builds capital, so a rich and wealthy class will exist as long as currency is maintained. You have this perverted sense of what government does for these people. They don't have to do too much, theoretically.